About your Search

20121112
20121120
Search Results 0 to 6 of about 7 (some duplicates have been removed)
of the line of the conservative era that began coherently with ronald reagan in 1980. mitt romney was the ultimate remainderman. that's why they have an easier time of dumping on him right now. >> so the clown car has backed up to run over mitt romney. that's your image for tonight, howard. >> yes, it is. >> that woman who didn't like her husband, she drove over the guy in the parking lot a few years back then drove back over him again. i don't want to get involved in that legal case, but i do remember the pictures. let's go to john here. is this the clown cars as howard beautifully put it backing up over the guy that outdorked them and won the election even though he's no more or less dorky than they were? your thoughts. >> some of these people are not certifiable clowns who are saying these things about romney. i don't disagree with howard's characterization in general, i do think it's fair to say that part of romney's problem was that he was really always an incredibly bad fit with the republican party at almost every level. he was not most of the things the republican party is
intellect or exercise in ideology. i covered ronald reagan for six years. and if you want to discuss it some more, i can tell what you i learned in those six years of covering the presidency. it with a lot different than than what i thought it was going to be. it became clear to me that to a large degree, it is a test of the president's will and purpose. to believe in a few big things, to stand steady against the swirl of political controversy, opinion, nowadays, that's certainly not true for the presidents in this book. polls, advice from counselors, all kinds of things that would drive a president away from his core convictions to not necessarily do what he believed in or what he really believed to be best for the country. this is a book about character, about 16 presidents from george washington to george w. bush who all in a moment of national crisis did what they in their hearts believe was the right thing for the country, who showed character. not necessarily what turned out to be right. think there's some decisions they made that i don't know i agree with. and you can certainly argue
. in the last 100 years, only four, right. so eisenhower, fdr, ronald reagan and barack obama. i think the idea that barack obama does not have a historic mandate when 44 men have been president and seven did what he did in two terms, he got 69 million votes the first time, 62 million votes the second time, i think he has a mandate. the things to be done that are great in this election happened to fall on the progressive side, in part because the republican party and conservatism has gone so far right things that used to be centrist, like environmentalism, which was a teddy roosevelt thing which even richard nixon was in favor of. >> john mccain. >> newt gingrich. >> these things have been now reclassed as liberal, right. the victories that the president has a chance to get which are historic, like on climate change, on immigration, are now progressive ideas because they've been left behind. >> it's now almost up to the republican party to grab a piece of that pie to say this is our victory too when in reality if they had done it earlier -- >> let's don't get in debate about the mandate. you ma
-- you can thank ronald reagan and margaret thatcher for doing it. host: this morning, jodie writes in on twitter, the b.p. disaster was made by bip it. there were safety regulars that were ignored. they know what they were doing before it blew up. we'll go to chad now from farmington, new mexico on the republican line. chad, thanks for calling. caller: yeah, thanks for having me. love what you guys have going on. sorry to say but i am a republican. i just had a question, since they already gave you the projected numbers for what they plan on spending everything on, does that show that they just don't plan on giving anybody, any people that were actually affected any money at all? host: what do you mean by that? caller: like, since they already gave the projected numbers of how much money they're spending on each individual group that they gave money to, do they plan on those groups giving the money to the people that actually were affected by it? host: i'll point you back to the "new york times" graphic on this. b.p. has set aside $42 billion to cover the cost related to the spill.
examples of presidents who solved big problems by finding common ground with the other side. ronald reagan did it with a democratic-led house after a far more resounding second-term victory than president obama's, as did bill clinton, with a republican-controlled house and a republican-controlled senate after a more resounding second-term victory than president obama. both examples -- both of them -- illustrate the rare opportunity that divided government presents. president obama can follow suit or he can take the extremist view that both reagan and clinton rejected, by thumbing his nose at the other side and insisting that if republicans aren't willing to do things his way, he won't do anything at all. now, if the president's serious, he'll follow the leads of president reagan and clinton. if he's really serious, he'll put the campaign rhetoric aside, propose a realistic solution that can pass a republican-controlled house and a divided senate, and work to get it done. and if the president acts in this spirit, i have no doubt he'll have the support of his own party and a willing partner
Search Results 0 to 6 of about 7 (some duplicates have been removed)